DOCSLIB.ORG

Swansong: Blakely, Brooke and Vavasseur. Part 2*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Swansong: Blakely, Brooke and Vavasseur. Part 2* International Naval Journal, 2019, 7(1) Copyright © 2019 by Academic Publishing House Researcher s.r.o. Published in the Slovak Republic International Naval Journal Has been issued since 2013. E-ISSN: 2413-7596 2019, 7(1): 3-63 DOI: 10.13187/inj.2019.1.3 www.ejournal37.com Articles and Statements Swansong: Blakely, Brooke and Vavasseur. Part 2* Kent R. Crawford a , *, Donald E. Carlucci b a Gunnery Fire Control Group, Indianapolis (IN), USA b Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken (NJ), USA Abstract The decades of the 1860s and 1870s were characterized by one of the most thorough-going Technical Revolutions the world had ever seen, which has been characterized as the ‘Second Industrial Revolution.’ And this Revolution affected the world’s Navies no less than every other human endeavor. In the field of ordnance, iron smooth-bore cannon firing solid round shot were replaced by rifled cannon, initially to lob elongated exploding shell with greater accuracy, but soon firing elongated solid shot needed to pierce armor plate. History recalls the many designers and/or manufacturers of the Great Guns. Yet the work of lesser known figures has been overlooked. This is a continuation of the story of Captain A.T. Blakely, R.A. by examining the work of John Mercer Brooke, a licensee, and his successor, Josiah Vavasseur. Context is provided by an examination of the gradual abandonment of the Armstrong System reliance on wrought iron and the eventual adoption of steel by the British Government. Keywords: Naval, artillery, Blakeley, gun. John Mercer Brooke’s career as an ordnance designer and chief of the Confederate Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance ended in the chaos and confusion of the collapse of the Confederacy in April 1865. But during that brief four years, he made what should be considered an indelible mark in the history of ordnance technology, especially considering the constraints imposed by the Confederacy’s limited technical and industrial base. Brooke labored under the limitation of only having cast iron, though of high quality, to work with, and only wrought iron available for the reinforce/hoops/bands. What little steel that was available in the Confederacy was of the ‘puddle’ variety and in insufficient quantity for use in heavy ordnance. And as the war continued, brass/bronze became in short supply. In addition, the capacity to produce wrought iron bands of greater than two inches thick and six inches wide was virtually non-existent, though in compensation, the use of scientifically and mathematically ‘adjusted’ hoops produced sufficient initial tension and hence greater strength compared to the contemporary Parrott guns. *Continue, See part 1 on International Naval Journal. 2018 * Corresponding author E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.R. Crawford), [email protected] (D.E. Carlucci) 3 International Naval Journal, 2019, 7(1) In addition to a few ‘Blakely Conversions’ – invariably called ‘Brooke Conversions,’ which included the first seven 7in Single Banded guns converted from Dahlgren 9in blocks – he designed a ‘family’ of Great Guns that were the best of the type in either side of the conflict. These ranged from 6.4in Single Banded to 11in Triple Banded. He also designed numerous projectiles and gas checks, and was responsible for approving projectile and gas check designs for use in rifled naval guns of all sizes. He is also credited, quite erroneously, with virtually every rifled and banded smooth-bore in Confederate military service. And given the Confederacy’s great need for rifled artillery, there were many such guns, ranging from field guns to 10in Rodman ‘Columbiads.’ To be accurately classified as a ‘Brooke’ – more appropriately a ‘Blakely’ – Conversion, three criteria must be applied: First, the gun must be either newly cast or a block (cast but not bored out). This is necessary to avoid any cracks or dents that invariably and inevitably result from use over time, and why merely rifling an existing smooth-bore is considered ‘weaker’ than a new gun, and not able to get the full advantage of the initial tension from the reinforce. Second, Brooke was Navy, not Army, meaning the guns were for use by the Navy. The sole exception was a small lot of newly cast 42pdr 7in guns cast by the Tredegar and Bellona foundries in 1861, probably not more than 14 pieces in all. Perhaps ten of these guns were used to arm an ironclad of the naval squadron defending Charleston. Third, and unique to the Confederacy, Brooke specified the hook-slant rifling favored by Blakely. This limits the number of rifling facilities to two; Tredegar and the Naval Ordnance Works, both in Richmond, Virginia. That number would be expanded to three when the new Selma Ordnance Works began operation in 1863. James Eason and Brothers Foundry of Charleston rifled and banded a considerable number of guns during the war, including a number of 42pdrs, but used Parrott rifling. Fig 1. Confederate Banded 12pdr Napoleon Excluding the various ‘Conversions’ – seven IX inch Dahlgrens into 7in Single Banded rifles, perhaps fourteen 42pdr 7in 3.79 T smooth-bores into 7in 4.24 T rifles, and an unknown but substantial number of 32 pdr 57 cwt smooth-bores into 6.4 in 61 cwt rifles – very few actual Brooke pattern guns were produced during the war. Only 306 guns were cast, compared to 585 Parrott 100pdr 6.4in guns alone produced during the war, 352 of which for the Navy. Tredegar cast eleven 6.4 in Single Banded guns through October 1862, when Secretary of the Navy Stephan Mallory mandated the change to Double Banded. An additional three under construction were then altered to be Double Banded. Tredegar produced a total of 27 Double Banded, including the three mentioned above, from November 1862 to 1864 when production of the type ceased. 4 International Naval Journal, 2019, 7(1) Fig 2. Confederate banded and rifled 12pdr naval gun The new Selma Ordnance Works cast 27 of the Double Banded pattern, but delivered only 15. The remaining 12 exhibited flaws in the casting; likely cracks or fissures caused by uneven cooling, and were deemed unsuitable for withstanding the pressures and strains of firing heavy rifled projectiles. Five of these were bored up to 8in caliber for use as smooth-bores, having been deemed to be strong enough for such use. This implies that the flaws were relatively shallow and could be eliminated by the 1.6in increase in the bore. The fate of the other seven is unknown. Tredegar produced 19 of the 7in Single Banded pattern in 1862 prior to the change to the Double Banded pattern. Tredegar produced 36 of the 7in Double Banded pattern from November 1862 to early 1865. Selma cast 54 to that pattern, but due to casting flaws only delivered 39. Attempts to bore these up to 9in failed, implying that the flaws were too deep and/or the barrel would be too weak after losing two inches of metal. Only three of the superb 7in Triple Banded pattern were produced by Tredegar. Tredegar produced four of the 8in Double Banded pattern, in April and May of 1864. Two were known to have been mounted in ironclad warships. Sources differ on the fate of the other two. Some say they were seconded to the Army for coast defense, a not uncommon ultimate use of heavy naval ordnance, or they were bored up to 10in and deployed as smooth-bores. Selma produced seven of the 10in pattern and Tredegar four, all in 1864. And all were deployed as smooth-bores, at least one to an ironclad warship, but most for coast defense. Selma cast twelve 11in Double Banded guns in 1864, all as smooth-bores, but due to the casting problems that plagued their production of heavy guns, only eight were delivered, and all used in coast defense. Tredegar produced two 11in Triple Banded guns as smooth-bores in 1863-64, but their disposition and fate are unknown, and neither has survived. There is something of a legend that Brooke designed the large bore guns as smooth-bores. With the exception of the 6.4in Double Banded Selma guns, the essential difference between a smooth-bore and a rifled gun is the rifling. Armstrong’s 100pdr 9.22in smooth-bore became a 200pdr rifled gun, his 150pdr 10.5in smooth-bore became a 300pdr rifled gun, and his 300pdr 13.3in smooth-bore became the infamous 600pdr rifled gun. And rifled guns could and did fire 5 International Naval Journal, 2019, 7(1) spherical projectiles. Indeed, for close range engagements, solid round shot and cylindrical bolts could and were fired by smooth-bores and rifles. Rifling may be the intent, but it is also an option. From the closing months of 1863 on, the war was going increasingly badly for the Confederacy, and the demand for heavy ordnance greatly exceeded their industry’s ability to produce. It was therefore expedient to forego the weeks or even months required to rifle the Great Guns in the few back-logged rifling facilities. An interesting theory regarding the disposition of some or all of the Selma casting failures, seven 6.4 in and fifteen 7 in guns, is that they were converted into siege howitzers through the expedient of cutting the barrel down to produce an overall length of around 80 inches, boring the shortened barrel to 8in caliber, removing the second band and a hoop from the first, and providing suitable carriages for fortress or field deployment. Such guns were actually purpose built by Tredegar and Bellona for a total of 35 such weapons, from late 1863, with the final gun ‘finished’ in March 1865.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1.0 Firearms History
    1.0 Firearms History 1.0.1 Introduction While a history of firearms should start with the earliest of hand cannons, progressing through the It may seem that a history of firearms is an illogical wheel lock, miquelet and so on. For this book, way to begin this book, but any competent forensic however, it will start at the flintlock, as it is unlikely firearms examiner needs to have a good working that anything earlier would be encountered in every- knowledge of this subject matter. As such, it should day case work. A much more comprehensive history form part of the court qualification process at the of firearms is offered in Appendix 4. beginning of any trial. Having said that, though, it would be unreasonable to expect a firearms examiner with many years’ experience to be able to give, for 1.0.2 The flintlock (Figure 1.0.1) example, a precise date for the introduction of the Anson and Deeley push button fore-end. Such an The flintlock ignition system really signalled the esoteric piece of firearms history may have formed advent of an easy-to-use firearm with a simple part of the examiner’s training many years ago, but mechanism for the discharge of a missile via a unless s/he had a particular interest in shotgun powdered propellant. In this type of weapon, the history it would be unlikely that s/he would remem- propellant was ignited via a spark produced by ber little other than an approximate date or period. striking a piece of flint against a steel plate.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Defense Artillery Force
    49 PUEiFACE * This document is one of a series prepared under instructions from the Supreme Cormmander for the Allied Powers to the Japanese Governrien-t (SCAPIN No. 126, 12 Oct 19'45). The series covers not only the operations of the Japanese armed forces during World War- II but also their operations in China and M4anchuria which preceded the world conflict. The original studies were written by former officers of the Japanese Army and Navy under the supervision of the Historical Rrecords Section of the First (Army) and Second (Navy) Demobilization Bureaus of the Japanese Govern aent. The manuscripts were translated by the ilitary Intelligence Service Group, G2, Headcuarters, Far East Commiiand. 1 tensive editing has ,been ac- colmplished by the Foreign Iistories Division of the Office of the Military History Officer, Headquarters, United States Aynj Japan. Monograph No. 68 is a report made 'by Lt Col. Tadataka Nu na- guchi of Army Technical: Ieadquarters and aij. Katsuji Akiyana of the Army Heavy Artillery.. School of an' inspection tour of Singapore and Java between Mj4arch and May 1;42. It covers the condition of the fortresses and weapons on those islands; an estimate of the nixiiber of weapons, since at that time a complete count had not been accomplished, and recowmendations in regard to their use and dis- posal. As the oasic manuscript fromil which this st~idy was prepared was particularly poor and filled. with. obvious errors, Lti. Col. NJumagu- chi, now a civilian in Tokyo, and Maj . Akiyama, now a colonel with the Japanese Self lDefense Force, have been interviewed on.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuller Article
    A Global Forum for Naval Historical Scholarship International Journal of Naval History December 2005 Volume 4 Number 3 “A portentous spectacle”: The Monitor U.S.S. Miantonomoh Visits England Howard J. Fuller University of Wolverhampton United Kingdom [PICTURE 1/Oscar Parkes painting (Photo# NH 59544)] Can a single man-o’-war make a difference—in peacetime? Perhaps, if it is the right ship at the right place at the right time. A recent BBC series recreating the mid 18th- century Pacific voyages of Captain Cook, successfully demonstrated in this regard that H.M.S. Endeavour certainly made a difference; to the people who sent her around the world, to the people who saw her coming in off the horizon, billowing and bright, and to wider events and developments which those people could only imagine—and which historians ever since have sought to understand.[1] One might also mention the transpolar voyage of the U.S.S. Nautilus, nearly 200 years after Cook; not so much a mission of exploration and oceanography but a historic display of shipboard nuclear power and potential nevertheless; a 19th century dream, or nightmare, come true.[2] Indeed Jules Verne’s Captain Nemo was well aware that his own Nautilus could not just tip but completely topple the surface world’s ‘balance of power’ at sea, with predictable results. As the captive narrator of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea exclaimed: Of course, everyone now knew what the supposed monster had turned out to be….a submarine, far more dangerous than a monstrous whale. …Doubtless, everywhere at sea, this fearful engine of destruction was being pursued.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Reloading
    Intro to Reloading This introductory manual will cover the basics of handloading ammunition. It will include information regarding necessary equipment, required materials, and the reloading process. This is not intended to be a comprehensive guide. Reloading is an in-depth, complex subject. This guide is a starting point for absolute beginners. Further information should be sought out for your specific calibers you are reloading, your specific brand and models of equipment, and your specific reloading components and materials. Follow all instructions that come with your equipment and materials. When someone who has never reloaded their own ammo looks into it, the needed equipment list is daunting and expensive. It is the intention of this guide to make reloading seem easy and accessible. Anyone, even children, can reload ammunition if shown the steps. My 8 year old is more than eager to help me de-prime, drop powder, or resize shells. Hopefully the knowledge presented here will increase your confidence when it comes to starting your reloading journey. [2] Socialistra.org Why Reload? Self Sufficiency: A decade ago, the generally accepted wisdom was “You will always be able to find .22lr. You will always be able to find .223. You will always be able to find .30-06. You will always be able to find XYZ.” After Sandy Hook in 2012, that all changed. For YEARS afterward, certain kinds of ammo were simply non-existent on store shelves. In this Time of Trump, it may not seem to make sense to spend $.10-$.25 more on each round you would make vs just buying the factory ammo.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Numerical Simulations of Impacts of a Spherical Shell Projectile on Small Asteroids
    46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015) 1868.pdf NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF IMPACTS OF A SPHERICAL SHELL PROJECTILE ON SMALL ASTEROIDS. K. Kurosawa1, H. Senshu1, K. Wada1, and TDSS team, Planetary Exploration Research Center, Chiba Institute of Technology, ([email protected]) Introduction: Recently, impactors have been strength of the target Y is given by Y = max(Ycoh + µP, widely used in a number of planetary exploration Ylimit), where Ycoh, µ, P, and Ylimit are the cohesion in missions [e.g., 1-4] to excavate the fresh material from the target, the coefficient of internal friction, the underground of asteroids, which are expected not to pressure in the target, and the Hugoniot elastic limit of suffer space weathering and thermal alteration due to the target. We employed the ε−α compaction model solar incidence. [11] to investigate the effects of the target porosity on The prediction of impact outcomes is necessary to the excavation processes. No gravity was included into derive scientific results as much as possible. There are the calculation. Lagrangian tracer particles were two problems, however, to predict impact outcomes on inserted into the grids to investigate the impact-driven small asteroids. First, the mechanical properties of flow field. For reference, we also conducted a few asteroids, such as the bulk porosity and the yield simulations using a dense copper spherical impactor strength, are largely unknown prior to arriving near with the same mass under the same conditions. target asteroids. Asteroids have a variation of the Results: Examples of snapshots of the simulation porosity from 0% to 80 % [5].
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses Battleships and Dividends: The Rise of Private Armaments Firms in Great Britain and Italy, c. 1860-1914 MARCHISIO, GIULIO How to cite: MARCHISIO, GIULIO (2012) Battleships and Dividends: The Rise of Private Armaments Firms in Great Britain and Italy, c. 1860-1914, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7323/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Battleships and Dividends: The Rise of Private Armaments Firms in Great Britain and Italy, c. 1860-1914 Giulio Marchisio This thesis analyses the rise of private armaments firms in Great Britain and in Italy from mid-19th century to the outbreak of the First World War, with a focus on naval armaments and military shipbuilding. During this period, the armaments industry underwent a radical transformation, moving from being based on public-owned arsenals and yards to being based on private firms – the system of military procurement prevalent today.
    [Show full text]
  • DCB Frequently Asked Questions
    Frequently Asked Questions “The bullet with the ‘ding’ cast in!” What is the "ding" that is cast in? The „DING‰ we intend to cast into every bullet is the sound of it hitting the target you are aiming at. Because we believe our bullets will shoot consistently and more accurately we have no doubt you, and more importantly the scorers, will hear more dings after you shoot. Realistically though, since the bullets are cast from a very soft alloy (see FAQ on ÂObturationÊ) the dings you see on the bullet surface are the result of simple bumping and tapping during the casting, sorting, sizing and packaging process. These do not in any way detract from the effectiveness or accuracy of the bullet. You will notice the bullets come in a vacuum formed bag to minimize more dinging in shipping and to keep the softer lubricant in the grooves, where it belongs. And finally, the dings are very consistent with the authenticity we are trying to match in the old bullets. Have you ever seen a perfectly surfaced antique bullet? We have been experimenting with the process and handling of these softer bullets for nearly a year and have discovered that there is hardly any way to commercially cast and process them without some „dings‰. Of course we could individually hand pack them into specially designed plastic or Styrofoam cradles, then seal and box them, but the cost would be so great we couldnÊt afford to shoot them ourselves, much less find a buyer in the market. We just hope you appreciate and enjoy the accuracy, authenticity, safety and economy the bullet provides, even with the ÂsilentÊ dings.
    [Show full text]
  • Driving Bands
    These are the bands placed around projectiles to prevent the forward loss of gas around the projectile. They are usually made from copper, gilding metal and sometimes sintered iron. The modern day has intruded here also and they will now be encountered in plastic versions. Their use and introduction can be traced back to the time when cylindrical projectiles first appeared. The original round cannonball because of its requirement to be loaded from the muzzle had no method of sealing the bore. In fact had the ball been tight enough to seal the bore you wouldn't have been able to load the weapon at all. All this changed when the Cylindro-ogival projectile arrived on the scene along with the not-new breech loading weapons. (They had been tried many years before but failed through the inability of the gunners to adequately seal the breeches). A round cannonball needs no stabilizing. Because of its spherical shape it is inherently stable. Ask any cricketer, golfer or baseballer. On the other hand the Cylindro-ogival projectile is inherently unstable. It will not fly very well at all unless it is stabilized in some way. The two basic methods of stabilizing an elongated projectile are: • Fin stabilization and, • Spin stabilization. Both of these methods are in current use in the world today. To provide adequate stability for a projectile using fins there needs to be FIN STABILISATION. some sort of protection for the fins. The arrow of your ancient bowman would not survive in the bore of a cannon without some form of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • The Torpedo Incident
    The Torpedo Incident The Torpedo Incident The Argus The Trip Of The Cerberus Contemporary Reports Index A Torpedo Calamity Mr Murray's Narrative Particulars of the Deceased Statement of the survivor, James Jasper Narrative of Eye Witness Captain Mandeville's Report The Inquest The Inquest The Late Gunner Groves The Geelong Advertiser Explosion at Queenscliff The Cerberus Disaster Mr Murray's Statement James Jasper's Statement Inquest on the Bodies The Funeral The Inquest The Williamstown Advertiser The Cerberus Calamity The Inquest The Funeral Inquest Report Summary Introduction Division 1 THE ARGUS Page 8, 5 March 1881 http://home.vicnet.net.au/~cerberus/torpedoincident.html (1 of 24)29/03/2005 9:28:10 PM The Torpedo Incident THE TRIP OF THE CERBERUS [BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH] (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) H.M.C.S.S. Cerberus, under the command of Captain Manderville, left her anchorage in the bay this morning, and after some practice off the Red Bluff, steamed away for the Heads. During the journey two targets were thrown out, the first being a triangle fixed up for the occasion at about 900 yards distance. The first round carried it away, and upon taking it on board it was found that it had been struck at the centre of the cross beam, and shattered to pieces. A small barrel was then put overboard with a red round to starboard. On account of the ebb tide the target drifted close to the steamer, and a tack had to be made so as to leave the target about 1,000 yards distant.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Ordnance Markings
    IAPANLS )RDNAN( MARKING KEY CHARACTERS for Essential Japanese Ordnance Materiel TABLE CHARACTER ORDNANCE TABLE CHARACTER ORDNANCE Tanks 1* Trucks MG Cars 11 Rifle Vehicles Pistol Carbine Sha J _ _ Bullet Grenade 2 Shell (w. #12) 12 Artillery Shell Bomb (w. #18) (W. #2) Rocket Dan Ryi Cannon !i~iI~Mark Number and 13~ Data on Bombs Howitzer Mortar H5 Go' 1 Metric Terms Explosives 14 Ammunition (Weight & Dimension) Yaku Sanchi Miri 5 Type 15 Aircraft Shiki . Ki Year 6 16 Metals Month Nen Getsu Tetsu Gasoline Fuze 7 ~Fuel Oils 17 Cap Lubricating Oils Train Yu Kan Primer Shell Case Airplane Bomb 8 Bangalore Torpedo 18 (w. #2) Grenade Launcher Complete Round To' Baku 9 (o) Unit or 9 (Organization 19 Factory He) Gun Sho Mines 10 Torpedo (Aerial) 20 n Arsenal Rai Sho RESTRICTED Translation of JAPANESE ORDNANCE MARKINGS AUGUST, 1945 A. S. F. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ORDNANCE WASHINGTON, D. C. RESTRICTED RESTRICTED Table of Contents PAGE SECTION ONE-Introduction General Discussion of Japanese Characters........................................... 1 Unusual Methods of Japanese Markings....................................................... 5 SECTION TWO-Instructions for Translating Japanese Markings Different Japanese Calendar Systems......................................................... 8 Japanese Characters for Type and Modification............................................ 9 Explanation of the Key Characters and Their Use....................................... 10 Key Characters for Essential Japanese Ordnance Materiel.......................... 11 Method of Using the Key Character Tables in Translation............................ 12 Tables of Basic Key Characters for Japanese Ordnance................................ 17 SECTION THREE-Practical Reading and Translation of Japanese Characters Japanese Markings Copied from a Tag Within an Ammunition Box.......... 72 Japanese Markings on an Airplane Bomb.................................................... 73 Japanese Markings on a Heavy Gun...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • University of Huddersfield Repository
    University of Huddersfield Repository Wood, Christopher Were the developments in 19th century small arms due to new concepts by the inventors and innovators in the fields, or were they in fact existing concepts made possible by the advances of the industrial revolution? Original Citation Wood, Christopher (2013) Were the developments in 19th century small arms due to new concepts by the inventors and innovators in the fields, or were they in fact existing concepts made possible by the advances of the industrial revolution? Masters thesis, University of Huddersfield. This version is available at http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/19501/ The University Repository is a digital collection of the research output of the University, available on Open Access. Copyright and Moral Rights for the items on this site are retained by the individual author and/or other copyright owners. Users may access full items free of charge; copies of full text items generally can be reproduced, displayed or performed and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or study, educational or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided: • The authors, title and full bibliographic details is credited in any copy; • A hyperlink and/or URL is included for the original metadata page; and • The content is not changed in any way. For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, please contact the Repository Team at: [email protected]. http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/ Were the developments in 19th century small
    [Show full text]